Air Canada B777 dropped down to 3500 feet, flight crew borrows passenger's binoculars to search for stricken yacht which happened to be near the flight path of the Boeing. They found them, and radioed the location to rescuers and help was dispatched. (www.cbc.ca) עוד...

In Australia flight crews of commercial flights are hailed as heroes for assisting in finding stranded vessels..Here at home that flight crew would have been featured on "The Nightly News" for potentially operating the aircraft in a manor that may have put passengers lifes in jeopardy by flying at un-safe altitudes, flying a low rates of speed and not adhering to victor airways....I am also pretty sure they would have found all the passengers that they could have found to tell their stories of how they didn't know what was going on and how they thought that they were going to crash into the drink.....Great job pilots.

Yeah Tim...same in EUR...the operators managers would have issued a warning letter for inappropriate operating procedure. Sea or Air the principal is the same regardles of colour creed or politics. Business people don't see it that way unless it is their kin.

Same scenario in the US: Half the passengers raise hell because the flight is late 45 minutes and get free vouchers, crew gets fired for not obeying the flight management system and "assuming" there is enough fuel for the descent and climb back to assigned flight level and putting passengers at risk, the other half of the passangers sue the airline for being put at risk after the last statement about the fuel becomes public. Boy we got a lot to learn. This is a perfect example that great things happen when common sense is used and people are willing to be "inconvenienced" for the good of others.

G-d bless the crew who pushed aside regulations and saved the people in the ship. There are still people who have the brains to take action when it is called for and perhaps a set of good binoculars should be standard cockpit equipment.

i doubt the pilots would've descended to 3500 feet if it was against regulations. They probably messaged their supervisors at dispatch first to see if they were allowed to. Besides, AC33 flies along the same route on approach to Sydney as the 10 other flights from North America, so one of the flights would've seen this guy eventually im sure.

You can't see squat from FL350 or wherever he was at up there except a lot of blue. If you would read the article, you will see that the CAPTAIN said the still couldn't see squat at 5000' which is why they went to 3700'. If I was the guy in the boat, I'd be glad you weren't flying one of those 10

and any commercial PILOT knows that serious deviations from the assigned flight plan for anything other than safety reasons for the flight crew and aircraft & passengers is a serious violation. Thats why i was saying its likely the flight crew asked for permission and got it before undertaking this SAR operation, as opposed to the thought they violated rules in order to do so.

had you READ my original post you would've noticed that's what i was trying to say.

Well, I don't see but the 1 post here and the part about the regulation/deviation is not my issue. It was your flip attitude about the other 10 flights as if the guy's life in the boat didn't amount to a tinker's damn. Read it yourself. Goodnight.

Great job by the crew in helping getting those on board the yacht rescued. I am sure the crew of the aircraft informed the passengers of their intent . Everyone was a winner- the yacht crew for being rescued- the aircraft crew knowiing they helped their fellow man(woman) - the passengers having a great story to share with family and friends.

Dumb comments! If the jet had sufficient fuel, what they did was perfectly safe. It's just that at that low altitude much more fuel is used. That's a lot of ocean and even near sea level it is very difficult to spot even a large sailboat. I know. I filmed a rescue at sea from a cruise ship. We had to reverse course and track down an emergency flare. Put yourself in the situation of the stranded mariner. In our case many ships had passed unawares. After five days adrift the three people were very glad for our assistance.

There's nothing dumb about the comments. It's nice to help and this one worked out. What's being overlooked is maybe some passengers didn't want to do this, they may be nervous fliers. You say it was perfectly safe, not correct, there was some danger involved.Low altitude flying like that in a big airplane has some risk. The point I'm making is once the crew decided to do it, everyone else was just along for the ride, whether they wanted to or not. I'm not against it, just pointing out that your statement of perfectly safe is very incorrect. Check out the Mt. Erebus crash and you'll see how "stuff" happens.

Manoeuvring,low speed, low to the surface, it just adds up. Fatigue at the end of a long trip, acting on impulse. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy it worked out, but there was some great risk there, calculated but still great...

The captain is the chief on board and the ultimate authority. If he decides to do something, everyone must just keep their mouth shut and obey. They could just voice their humble opinion as a proposal, if anything.

Well now old man, you know that is the theory and the way it is supposed to be, but what you are stating is more real life.lol. I do have to agree with you on your comment about additional risk at low altitude, besides the addition fuel burn. At 3700', your aircraft is more in a landing mode in most cases and is a whole 'nuther machine. According to the story, they did check the FSIS for fuel but by their own admission, the FSIS does not take altitude into it's calculations, but they did check and felt they were OK

Nah, he just made it seem like when the captain says jump, everyone has to say how high...Just one of those captain is g_d mentality. Didn't capitalize, I'm tired, just flew 5.5 in a 172 dodging weather with my eyes...

Visited Sportys with my son, I paid, he flew. Damn I haven't done cross country flying deviating around weather at 80 kts. gs in a little airplane in probably 20 years. We made it back non stop, I sat there reading performance charts and tweaking the mixture, it was a good refresher. Got about 7 miles from P40. Didn't see the pres. though...By the way, we flew form NJ to Sportys for a sectional, that sectional cost $1400!!!

Yeah, but a slobbish guy will deliver the sectional via USPS, while I got in person service by 2 hot 20 year old chicks at Sportys... Priced almost like when Preacherman used to hit the strip bars back in '71...

By golly if Sully was flying he would have landed on the ocean, let the sailor climb aboard, taken off and continued on to the destination............JUST KIDDING........GREAT story and hats off to all involved. I can just imagine that guy looking up and seeing that huge plane dipping it's wings ............what a feeling that must have been.

You either don't know who "Sully" is, don't understand the words in all caps that said "JUST KIDDING", or you are being a smartass ? You can read up about Capt. Sullenberger on Wikipedia, can't help you with the other two.

Can you remember that "Gimli" event sparkie where they sailed a 757 I think it was for about 100 miles to land on an unused airfield. What a masterpiece of airmanship that was. I know they applauded Sully but that Canuck was on another league.

You are correct, and they landed on an abandon airstrip that had been converted into a race track. the nose gear collapsed for an unknown unrelated reason, and if it had not would have killed a kid on a bike that never saw it coming... Interesting Miracles.

I hate to say it, as good as the Captain was at flying, it was still pilot error. The fueler misfueled the a/c (due to weight conversions) and with the MEL on the A/C for fuel quantity the Pilot who was ultimately responsible for it.

The nose gear did not collapse. It never went down because the gear lever was not selected to the "OFF" position prior to activating the Alt Gear Ext switch. Because they had to delay gear extension until the field was guaranteed, there was not enough time to find the Alt Gr Ext checklist. In those days this was stuck at the back of the "Loss of C Hyd" checklist.

We actually got 2 glide stories here. Both links are below. The AirTransat is listed below but the "GIMLI GLIDER" was Air Canada and was a 767. Jeremy has a link posted below on the Air Transat and Dan Baker has one posted on the GIMLI GLIDER, about 3 comments on down. They made a movie on the GLIDER later. On the GIMLI GLIDER, the nose gear collapsed as they had to do a gravity drop and it did not lock.

I don't, probably just google it. Fate played a part in that too. They were supposed to go on a northerly track, but got recleared on a southerly track. That was probably the only reason they made land.

Thanks Dan yes....." (In previous times, this task would have been completed by a flight engineer, but the 767 was the first of a new generation of airliners that made this position redundant.)" To put this in context of the times I started my high school education in 1966 and all aour scinece ed was in metric.

wonderful of the Air Canada 777 to be able to help. I can only imagine what it would be like, to be stranded in the ocean and see a International carrier's 777 coming down to 3,500 feet to look for me. Wow! way cool!

Kudos to the USCG and SPAWAR guys who came and stayed on the project for the digital distress system knowing it was already going to be treaty violation late when the money for the project showed up. Read Hillenbrand's Unbroken for one of the more compelling stories of what it is like to be adrift in the pacific

Once again, given the opportunity, far too many people eagerly jump on the America bashing bandwagon given the negative content of many posts presented herein. It seems to be the thing to do these days especially from senior officials in our government and the media. While it may be symptomatic of frustration for a variety of reasons, it's always easiest to seek the path of least resistance when you think you're part of the crowd. I prefer to think that an American flight crew if given the same set of circumstances would have done the same thing. I know I would have.

Paul, somewhere up above in a comment the term common sense was used. I don't think the reaction fron any flight crew would have been any different. The aftermath would have been how airline management would handle it; take the PR while there or discipline for the crew, bitch about the cost to the bottom line and bitch about the expected lawsuits. Seems to me that there was an ANZ A320 came in here too. It's just the American way man.

You got that wrong Paul...most of us here have every respect for the USA and her people. In my posts you will often find damning crticism of the non operational management who are led by people who have no operational experience. Many of them are "empire builders" and rely on the goodwill and good judgement of people who are at the operational "coal face". The modus operandi of this class of manager is intimidation.

I saw a passenger and the Captain on that flight talking about the FACT that they dropped from 37,500 ft to 5000ft to assist in finding the yacht...where did the author of this article get their WRONG info?

They're FLYING AC FLIGHT 33 WHICH FLIES FROM TORONTO TO VANCOUVER AND THEN FROM VANCOUVER TO SYDNEY AUSTRALIA. United and Qantas are not the only flights from North America to Australia. Canadians love it . No more transferring through US Customs and Immigration. Especially nowadays .

there's always pro's and con's help locate sailor ftom a AC flight and different airlines have certain procedures and some one always will complain. What if that sailor was your brother or relative? then we would be happy no complaint.

Hi all - I was a passenger on this flight. It DID break the boredom! The crew kept us informed as to what was happening and even put out a call to borrow passengers' binoculars to help spot the yacht. We got down under 6000ft (if the inflight map is to believed). I think the pilot probably enjoyed turning off the autopilot and doing some flying as well. The passengers didn't seem worried – we'd rather have the 'joy ride' than have one dead sailor.

I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I'd be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I've been doing=> goo.gl/DqlMH

Not being Orthodox you wouldn't know that you spell it G-d out of reverence and only use the full letters if you are writing something religious and then you would mostly use Hashem (Hebrew for The Name) instead. If you were a conservative or reform or other Jew you probably would spell it as you do.

And, there would be some Orthodox Jews somewhere who don't care about that but its what we do here.

Hopefully I have cleared up your misconception and I did graduate from the University of Maine Magna Cum Laude if that makes it more clear.

Almost time to light candles for the weekend, so I will turn off my computer and not worry about any replies until later Saturday night, Good Shabbos, Shabbat Shalom

Just what good did the 777 do by putting itself that close to the ocean? He certainly didn't stop, didn't drop anything. A wing wiggle? The sailors transponders already gave his location. There wasn't a rescue based on anything the 777 did. duh.

I disagree that the B777 did nothing. As the first eye ball on the scene rescuers could plan a response. If the beacon was coming from the sailor in a raft or even swimming in the water it would become an emergency rescue and helicopters would have been dispatched. The identification of a dismasted yacht allowed for a controlled rescue by ship where time was not as important. Kudos to Air Canada. We are in this together.

So tell me. What good did the 777 do for the guy? He had transponders giving his location. If not, they couldn't coordinate the overflight. Read the story. Except for letting him know help was coming possibly all he did was delay the flight and put a 777 a lot closer to the water than it should have been.

well I'll bet that 3,500ft to 6,000 ft is a lot further away from other things that planes come in proximity of on many other approaches around the world that everyday commercial pilots encounter....Don't believe me; look up some of the approach footage from Toncontin and the old Hong Kong airport.

Tim: you could have gone all day without talking about KaiTak. I was in there 4 times in my lifetime; once as an FE, once as an FA and twice as left seat. All 4 times, regardless of position, required a change of clothes before leaving the plane and sending the seats to the local upholtery shop after we got back to have the pucker removed. Bad as they were, at least they were daylight landings.lol

Congrats to Air Canada. At least that sailor's life was saved. Which is more that can be said for the two Panamanian fisherman who, after being ignored by a Carnival Cruise Lines captain, died of exposure off the coast of Ecuador earlier this year. This, AFTER, several of the cruise ship's passengers saw, filmed, and reported the small fishing vessel in distress to the ship's officers. A third fisherman, who lived to tell the tale, was rescued by the Ecuadorian Coast Guard.